Though many Americans prefer the suburbs, I am not sure your West Los Angeles example is the best. Seems like LA continues to grow, and it grows most dense on the west side. So out of the 300+ million, many people like living in cities. In general, the city population of the US is pretty stable, growth in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York more than offsets the decline in Detroit and Cleveland - we will know more after the 2010 Census comes out, but the percentage of the US population living in cities has stayed pretty constant since 1990.

Suburbs are gaining in population share, but surprisingly, its the rural share of the population that is declining - a decline that would be even greater if places on the rural fringe of cities was excluded.

That's where redevelopment of parcels comes in and the idea of building up over out. Planners should encourage through comp plans and zoning ordinances, but the market will ultimately decides if this happens. Studies have shown that over infrastructure costs are lower in "ubran" areas as compared to a green field development because of the costs to bring services to the greenfield area as compared to an upgrade, if it is even necessary.

This is pretty much what most american's think. Can't end sprawl or even think about that when people agree with this statement.

Planners are regulators and enforcers (you play that role at the front counter during plan checks). We don't do what the public wants. Planners answer to councils/boards of supervisors and live at the political whim. I hate it when people think we are simply regulators. If we were, than "Any Idiot Can Plan".

I agree with all on all, and yeah it's hard to make people like the urban areas. Crowded, not as nice looking, and less space. Condos and apartments are okay, and small houses are okay. High-rise apartments, lofts, and tenements are what I can't stand. And I do remember two stories buildings being cheaper than a spread out building.

And I remember now what my teacher's saying was...planners are regulators, not facilitators. Planners do enforcing too. but we are not the ones who make the decisions.

....And I remember now what my teacher's saying was...planners are regulators, not facilitators.....

Your instructor is wrong. One of the key skills we learn is facilitating, such as, "how can a property owner achieve their goals and still comply with the jurisdiction's land use regulations?" Many times their goals are too lofty and it's our charge to assist them in finding a solution.

Planners are regulators and enforcers (you play that role at the front counter during plan checks). We don't do what the public wants. Planners answer to councils/boards of supervisors and live at the political whim. I hate it when people think we are simply regulators. If we were, than "Any Idiot Can Plan".[/QUOTE]

I agree with this completely, but I think it goes even one step further. If we were in fact simply regulators and even enforcers then we wouldn't exist. Building inspectors would simply be handed a code book to look things up in. The danger is that we sometimes get sort of, I don't know, professionally depressed, you know? And we function like automatons instead of suggesting the things that could work (within reason, I am in Utah of course and want to keep my job) and trying to take that leading edge with regard to land use so that the political will can sort of slowly follow. That's what I think, anyway. Love your posts all the time, Raf. I get the feeling we work in roughly the same environment.

Your instructor is wrong. One of the key skills we learn is facilitating, such as, "how can a property owner achieve their goals and still comply with the jurisdiction's land use regulations?" Many times their goals are too lofty and it's our charge to assist them in finding a solution.

Well put RJ, and I totally agree with this statement. Far too many times I have run across municipal planners that simply "process" rather than facilitate. It's disheartening.

Urban19, your instructor seems to be out of touch with the realities of on the ground planning (and some professors just are). Rather than taking their word as the "word of god" try thinking for yourself and question their assumptions.

Based on where I live in Co Springs, I don't see sprawl ending anytime soon without a major shift in planning policy (ain't happening) or a major demand for urban development (ain't happening). Without a strong community interest in how things are planned or future comp plans that are actually relied on, sprawl will continue. The question we face is: do I get paid to plan what is demanded or do I allow someone else to get paid to design what is demanded?

At some point here in the West, resources WILL become a major factor in how growth and development is considered. I just hope its not too late.

I agree with all on all, and yeah it's hard to make people like the urban areas. Crowded, not as nice looking, and less space. Condos and apartments are okay, and small houses are okay. High-rise apartments, lofts, and tenements are what I can't stand.

Again, millions of people live in urban areas, by choice. Very wealthy people, too, who could pretty much live where ever they like. Why should your personal preferences dictate how other people live?

I don't like single family homes and rural communities, but I don't say that therefore they should be discouraged. Or that no one likes them. Our country is a better place for having them as part of the landscape (I just think we'd be a better country if there was a smaller percentage of them)

This is the key. Partisans who decry urban living in support of their suburban policy options are very vulnerable to the 'choice' theme. That is: you should be...um...pro-choice...in your housing policy. Period. Expand options. Expand freedom.

OTOH: planners should acknowledge that there are some folks who don't mind bland cookie-cutter Mc'burbs. My neighbors up the street had no idea their chosen neighborhood was a boring, featureless plain of roofs. They moved out here for low taxes and quietude and to be left alone. Just come out and say it that there will always be a market for McBurb. Let folks have their choice. If they choose to pay to live far away, that's how it goes.

This is the key. Partisans who decry urban living in support of their suburban policy options are very vulnerable to the 'choice' theme. That is: you should be...um...pro-choice...in your housing policy. Period. Expand options. Expand freedom.

OTOH: planners should acknowledge that there are some folks who don't mind bland cookie-cutter Mc'burbs. My neighbors up the street had no idea their chosen neighborhood was a boring, featureless plain of roofs. They moved out here for low taxes and quietude and to be left alone. Just come out and say it that there will always be a market for McBurb. Let folks have their choice. If they choose to pay to live far away, that's how it goes.

And conversely if a developer and his/her investors/bankers believe that the local market will support a close-in development with a very high unit density, why should we (including otherwise supposedly 'freedom-loving' local politicians) demand that he/she build far fewer units, often to the point where it will make the proposal uneconomical?

Instead, the focus should be on designing it in such a way that it will 'fit in' as best as possible.

I agree that there isn't one kind of appropriate housing or development for all. The argument though, it seems to me, is deeper. Doesn't low density, single-family development at the fringe put greater strain on the infrastructure that all development, including older neighborhoods, depend on? I suppose it could change with the specific situation, but we're dealing with generalizations here, right? Impact fees attempt to offset the cost, but are constantly under attack (at least here in the West).

I agree that there isn't one kind of appropriate housing or development for all. The argument though, it seems to me, is deeper. Doesn't low density, single-family development at the fringe put greater strain on the infrastructure that all development, including older neighborhoods, depend on? I suppose it could change with the specific situation, but we're dealing with generalizations here, right? Impact fees attempt to offset the cost, but are constantly under attack (at least here in the West).

Sure it does. But the family driving to qualify doesn't care about that. Until there is market saturation of other development forms such that prices aren't bid up to obtain such housing, McCookieCutter burbs will generally be cheaper and folks will put up with the extra 45 minutes in the car and 10 lbs around their gut.

Sure it does. But the family driving to qualify doesn't care about that. Until there is market saturation of other development forms such that prices aren't bid up to obtain such housing, McCookieCutter burbs will generally be cheaper and folks will put up with the extra 45 minutes in the car and 10 lbs around their gut.

This suggests a couple of things:

If dense centrally located development is more expensive, then there is more demand for it (or less keeping pace with demand),.

Most people are not aware of the health costs of distant housing. So they don't make knowledge based decisions

If dense centrally located development is more expensive, then there is more demand for it (or less keeping pace with demand),.

Most people are not aware of the health costs of distant housing. So they don't make knowledge based decisions

The demand part is pretty clear. The distant housing thing I think is fairly clear - certainly folks know more time in the car is less time at home, exercising, family activities, etc - Plantinga and Bernell get at this and how people make that tradeoff. Whether they self-select and know the likelihood of weight gain to calculate the chance, that is another story. Will having the number allow them to calculate Pareto optima? Dunno. The NRDC helps that along with a new study about walk score and foreclosures, which might help a bit...

the way I see it, as my opinion, I would say... all of the above, and then some.

I think sprawl is a contribution of everything. It's big business, because as much as we fight, they're dream of putting a store in or near our town/city/neighborhood will be on the basis of their template. They use a design (big box, usually facing the road, huge parking in front, etc.) they know works, a layout that has proven to maximize profits and ease for their customers. You see this a lot with Wal-Mart especially. Just a poll, how many people have "old" Wal-Marts in their town, and no one can do anything with? They just sit there, until some virtual unknown store moves in? And they best part... they left that store empty, to move into a brand new space down the street. Companies try to repeat what works, so they can continue making money, and sadly to maximize profits you need big box stores with lot's of land, and usually no sustainability.

I also, as un-American as this will sound, blame the "American Dream". This isn't seen in other countries, because here everyone wants a house, with a yard, white picket fence, and a place for their dogs and/or kids to play. This was breed into us as the definition of successful. Moving out of an apartment, having the freedom to turn the football game up as loud as you want without fear of having an eviction notice, or noise complaint the following Monday (I'm still bitter, can you tell?).

Lastly, people believe living close together, or in uptown/downtown urban areas has too many negatives. With the exception of great urban areas (Manhattan, Chicago,and some others) people don't have enough amenities within walking distance. I know in Charlotte, NC there is no retail to speak of within a few blocks of these handful of 40 story condos they just built. Crime is another thing. The mantra of urban areas being crime ridden is laughable mostly, but still, a fear of people when deciding to live downtown or in the 'burbs.

I think it's a mix of things, not just the three above, but those are the main things that I believe cause sprawl. It's not an evil plot by anyone, it just happens, it's the general consensus, and good luck trying to change that overnight or stopping it with zoning laws or anything else.

I will add to this that we are Americans, not Europeans, thus there's a part of most us that hates cities. It's in our national psyche and it may very well be in our genes. We Americans of European extraction are mostly the descendents of people who chose to move half a world away on the hope that they could have their own land rather than move a few hundred miles to a European city. That even goes for the "Famine Irish" who chose the New World over England or the Continent.

To Europeans, cities were beacons of enlightenment and freedom. They didn't mind exchanging the density, the bad air, the noise, and the squalor for opportunity. The Europeans who didn't buy into this left for North America.

To Americans, cities were extensions of the Old World that brought all the troubles of Europe to the New World. In the American mind, cities were "evil", and the bigger the city, the more "evil" it was. We have "Sin City" but we don't have "Sin County", as if nothing evil can happen in the hinterlands. Our national heroes are the cowboy, the lumberjack, and the farmer not the banker, the storekeeper or the factory owner.

We Americans were into sprawl even before we were a country ... heck, a major grievance against Britain by the American colonists in the 1760 and 1770s was the fact that Britain wouldn't let them move beyond the Appalachian Mountains! It wasn't like all the land east of the Appalachians had been developed into farms yet. States like Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan were being settled in the 1820s while parts of upstate New York remained wilderness. We suffered intellectual angst for decades after the 1890 census revealed that "the frontier" was gone in the continental US.

Well put RJ, and I totally agree with this statement. Far too many times I have run across municipal planners that simply "process" rather than facilitate. It's disheartening.

Urban19, your instructor seems to be out of touch with the realities of on the ground planning (and some professors just are). Rather than taking their word as the "word of god" try thinking for yourself and question their assumptions.

I do agree with my professor and I disagree with you posters. He has a top notch job, and is one of the universities most well-known professors. The company he works is doing planning research for the bullet train in California, so I would not downplay my professor.

I still couldn't remember what my professor's saying was, so I looked it up along with the definitions of facilitate and regulate. His saying is were facilitators and not regulators. Facilitate means to make things easier and regulate is to direct according to the rule. In my mind, we do more facilitating and making things easier for the public to understand and for council members. We do have to do some facilitating to make developers follow the rules and citizens, but it is not our main job. We plan, and don't make the decisions. The public and city council members makes the decisions.

If you still disagree with me, then I am not going to argue anymore because I am starting to feel a sense of bias-ism coming out.

Now back to the sprawl debate. Something I learned while at CSU Northridge is that I am a conservative-christian planner. Rather, you disagree or agree this is my belief on higher-density cities. Cities of modern time are based on greed. Cities are money making machines that suck the life out of the natural environment. The destruction of the Colorado River, and other water areas destroyed and leaving chemical waste that hurts the public. You only see the big cities killing off people, and the environment. The suburbs are safer and are built in the environment, and not take over the environment. God created the world so man would live with nature, and destroy his work. God has talked about time to time how cities are condensed sin, and he even went to the point of getting rid of five cities-Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela. God can't do much to cities now a days because we have Christians in many cities. All though look at where natural disasters have struck....San Francisco, Los Angeles, New Orleans....there is sin in the SF Valley where there is alot of porn. San Francisco has alot of greed going on. New Orleans has had some corrupt mayors.

.....Now back to the sprawl debate. Something I learned while at CSU Northridge is that I am a conservative-christian planner. Rather, you disagree or agree this is my belief on higher-density cities. Cities of modern time are based on greed. Cities are money making machines that suck the life out of the natural environment. The destruction of the Colorado River, and other water areas destroyed and leaving chemical waste that hurts the public. You only see the big cities killing off people, and the environment. The suburbs are safer and are built in the environment, and not take over the environment. God created the world so man would live with nature, and destroy his work. God has talked about time to time how cities are condensed sin, and he even went to the point of getting rid of five cities-Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela. God can't do much to cities now a days because we have Christians in many cities. All though look at where natural disasters have struck....San Francisco, Los Angeles, New Orleans....there is sin in the SF Valley where there is alot of porn. San Francisco has alot of greed going on. New Orleans has had some corrupt mayors.

Dude, I'm afraid you're going to get ganged up on after that paragraph. I see so many contradictions in your posts. A few thoughts and I'm done here.

- Your religious views are irrelevant to becoming a professional planner.
- Cities are "sin" ...does that mean there is no "sin" in the suburbs and rural patterns of development?
- Suburbs "...not take over the environment." Oh my....
- Your God was the first to employ the use of urban renewal? That's a good one.
- You condemn cities but your signature line is......
- Greed only occurs in cities? What a concept!!!
- Porn is everywhere. What's wrong with that?

The rest of you responders, I recommend you be kind. I can't read this anymore.

Now back to the sprawl debate. Something I learned while at CSU Northridge is that I am a conservative-christian planner. Rather, you disagree or agree this is my belief on higher-density cities. Cities of modern time are based on greed. Cities are money making machines that suck the life out of the natural environment. The destruction of the Colorado River, and other water areas destroyed and leaving chemical waste that hurts the public. You only see the big cities killing off people, and the environment. The suburbs are safer and are built in the environment, and not take over the environment. God created the world so man would live with nature, and destroy his work. God has talked about time to time how cities are condensed sin, and he even went to the point of getting rid of five cities-Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela. God can't do much to cities now a days because we have Christians in many cities. All though look at where natural disasters have struck....San Francisco, Los Angeles, New Orleans....there is sin in the SF Valley where there is alot of porn. San Francisco has alot of greed going on. New Orleans has had some corrupt mayors.

Now, I freely admit that I'm NOT a fan of living in big cities. That said, your views reveal a great deal of just plain ignorance. I'm not sure what college you attend/attended, but you are seriously deficient in general knowledge, especially about geography.

First off, the Colorado River does not flow through any big city. Las Vegas is like 50 miles away from Lake Mead which is filled by the Colorado. If there's urban pollution of the Colorado from the Las Vegas area, it's coming from the Las Vegas suburbs like Henderson, which are much closer to Lake Mead. There are no other big cities in the CR basin. I think that maybe Durango, CO is the next biggest. It's not cities that are polluting the Colorado but primarily agricultural run-off and possibily contamination from mining operations.

Second, how do you measure that "the suburbs are safer and are built in the environment, and not take over the environment"? Are you aware that there's been a long fight in northern Virginia to preserve the sites of Civil War battlefields in the face of the huge expansion of the Washington, DC, suburbs? What's happened to the orange groves in south Florida or the cattle and horses ranches that used exist between LA and SF? How is building 10,000 SFDs on what was once cow pasture "building in the environment"? Where the heck are the cows???

"Sin" isn't restricted to the big cities, either. Illegal whiskey making has historically been a "home industry" in the Appalachians -- and just not in the hills of Tennessee or North Carolina. Are you aware that one of the major cash crops grown in rural Cattaraugus County, NY, as well as in rural counties throughout the US is now marijuana -- and that people have been killed because of their involvement in this enterprise?

Are you saying there aren't "Christians" in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New Orleans -- or just not your kind of "Christians" -- and that's why these cities have been hit by earthquakes, mudslides, and hurricanes? Maybe you should pay a little more attention to what's going on in your own backyard because I think that the last big earthquake in the Bay Area affected both the city as well as many of its suburbs. The same with the mudslides in Southern Cal and Hurricane Katrina in the New Orleans "area". BTW, I always thought that the San Fernando Valley was suburban LA not part of the city. Natural disasters seldom respect municipal boundaries. Finally, I guess there are no Christians in Haiti because that entire country got walloped pretty hard very recently.

I think you need to get your nose out of your Bible and into mainstream newspapers and news sources so that you can gain some realistic idea of what's going on in the world. You also seriously need a really good course in geography -- or just some good, old fashioned map study!

Like RJ, I would really like to know why you are promoting "urbanism" if you feel as you do.

Now, I freely admit that I'm NOT a fan of living in big cities. That said, your views reveal a great deal of just plain ignorance. I'm not sure what college you attend/attended, but you are seriously deficient in general knowledge, especially about geography.

First off, the Colorado River does not flow through any big city. Las Vegas is like 50 miles away from Lake Mead which is filled by the Colorado. If there's urban pollution of the Colorado from the Las Vegas area, it's coming from the Las Vegas suburbs like Henderson, which are much closer to Lake Mead. There are no other big cities in the CR basin. I think that maybe Durango, CO is the next biggest. It's not cities that are polluting the Colorado but primarily agricultural run-off and possibily contamination from mining operations.

LA drains from the Owen Valley River and Colorado River. The water was also turned into a profitting situation. Now these two rivers leave behind chemical run-off and effect many.

Second, how do you measure that "the suburbs are safer and are built in the environment, and not take over the environment"? Are you aware that there's been a long fight in northern Virginia to preserve the sites of Civil War battlefields in the face of the huge expansion of the Washington, DC, suburbs? What's happened to the orange groves in south Florida or the cattle and horses ranches that used exist between LA and SF? How is building 10,000 SFDs on what was once cow pasture "building in the environment"? Where the heck are the cows???

These are suburbs fuelling a big city. They are trying to add more commuting suburbs for a big city. That metro has already been maxed out. There is needs to be a cap on how big suburbs can get. We need to get people to want to move to areas like Montana, Texas, and parts of the state that have less people. There are still areas in the nation where we can build, but people don't want to be around bad weather.

"Sin" isn't restricted to the big cities, either. Illegal whiskey making has historically been a "home industry" in the Appalachians -- and just not in the hills of Tennessee or North Carolina. Are you aware that one of the major cash crops grown in rural Cattaraugus County, NY, as well as in rural counties throughout the US is now marijuana -- and that people have been killed because of their involvement in this enterprise?

Sin is everywhere. But there is more in cities, and when you have sin condensed together it's harder to regulate because everyone is doing it.

Are you saying there aren't "Christians" in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New Orleans -- or just not your kind of "Christians" -- and that's why these cities have been hit by earthquakes, mudslides, and hurricanes? Maybe you should pay a little more attention to what's going on in your own backyard because I think that the last big earthquake in the Bay Area affected both the city as well as many of its suburbs. The same with the mudslides in Southern Cal and Hurricane Katrina in the New Orleans "area". BTW, I always thought that the San Fernando Valley was suburban LA not part of the city. Natural disasters seldom respect municipal boundaries. Finally, I guess there are no Christians in Haiti because that entire country got walloped pretty hard very recently.

There are Christians in all cities, and I mentioned that. The SF Valley is apart of LA (Northridge, Sylmar, Reseda, etc..) There is porn everywhere, but it's the porn capital. Not something I'd want my area to be a capital of. The Bay area has a huge homeless problem, and with all the rich there I think they can do more. And from my knowledge, there tends to be more homeless in big cities. You guys are obviously not Christian and didn't not hear about the Christian missionaries who were thrown in jail for adopting children that needed help. Sure it was partly their fault for not having adoption papers, but to treat them so horrible in jail is un-called for.

I think you need to get your nose out of your Bible and into mainstream newspapers and news sources so that you can gain some realistic idea of what's going on in the world. You also seriously need a really good course in geography -- or just some good, old fashioned map study!

Like RJ, I would really like to know why you are promoting "urbanism" if you feel as you do.

I promote smart growth, and fixing new urbanism. Man's population keeps growing, so I think we need to build more sprawl in areas that don't have alot of sprawl. Perhaps cap each suburban city to 100,000 population.